Download Same Courses, Different Outcomes? Variations in Confidence

Research Brief
Center for the Advancement of
Engineering Education
NSF Grant ESI-0227558
Same Courses, Different Outcomes?
Variations in Confidence, Experience, and
Preparation in Engineering Design
Authors: Andrew Morozov, Deborah Kilgore, Ken Yasuhara, and Cindy Atman
Source: Proceedings of 2008 American Society for Engineering Education Conference
There is evidence in the literature that women have lower confidence in their skills and
knowledge than men, particularly in areas considered crucial for engineering, like math and
science. This difference has been linked to gender gaps in engineering enrollment and
persistence. This study of engineering students extends research on gender differences by
examining how confidence with design interacts with academic preparation and the frequency of
design experiences in engineering coursework. Patterns of gender differences within the
racial/ethnic majority and minority groups are also
examined.
This study demonstrates that, at
Implications of Findings
least for this sample and with
Overall, the analysis by gender and by majority
respect to design, a commonly held
(White/Caucasian and Asian American/Asian) vs.
understanding about gender
underrepresented minority (URM) (African
differences in confidence does not
American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native extend to URM men and women.
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Mexican American/Chicano,
Puerto Rican, Other Latino) status undertaken in this study provides insights into students’
confidence to engage in engineering design activities, and their perceptions of the quantity and
quality of design education they receive in their coursework. While corroborating some findings
from earlier studies, this analysis has also uncovered longitudinal differences in the development
of student attitudes during undergraduate study.
The analysis revealed that in both the second and fourth year, men generally indicated
significantly higher levels of confidence as well as course preparation for engaging in
engineering design activities. The analysis also showed that the gender differences in confidence
and perceived academic preparation to engage in design are primarily accounted for by the
gender gap within the majority group. It was encouraging to see this gap diminish toward the
fourth year of engineering study. However, while the magnitude of the gender effect diminishes,
the general pattern of responses (men’s perceptions are slightly more positive compared to
women’s) persists across the majority group through the senior year.
Perhaps the finding of greatest impact is the localization of the gender gap within the majority
students in this study. This study demonstrates that, at least for this sample and with respect to
design, a commonly held understanding about gender differences in confidence does not extend
to URM men and women. This has programmatic implications in that the marginal outcomes of
programs designed to improve students’ confidence to do design may be greater for majority
women than for URM women.
The absence of any significant difference in how frequently students perceive they are being
exposed to design in their coursework indicates that students in this sample all perceived they
were receiving the same quantity of design education. At the same time, men rated their courses
more highly with respect to preparing them to do design, indicating that there is a gender
difference in the perception of the quality of design education students in this sample were
receiving. Possible explanations for this combination of findings include: the perceived quality
of design education may mirror differences in the courses and majors that students choose, with
gendered patterns arising in these differences that our analysis would not detect; gender
differences in what students understand course preparation to be; and that women in this sample
perceived that their preparation to do design came more from extracurricular activities and/or
work experiences than from their engineering coursework.
Finally, the design experiences that men and women have in their engineering courses may be
qualitatively different. Both men and women are engaging in the same design activities in their
courses, but perhaps in different ways. This has implications for instructors who aim to provide
all students with equal opportunities to learn design. For example, instructors may want to pay
greater attention to the individual roles that students play in their design teams and encourage
students to take on different roles from time to time.
Method and Background
This study is part of the Academic Pathways Study (APS), a research element of the NSF-funded
Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE), which focuses on students’
experiences as they move into, through, and out of engineering education. APS is a longitudinal
study of 160 undergraduate engineering students at four diverse institutions (40 students at each
institution). This analysis describes results from three related questions that were part of a larger,
web-based APS survey administered to participants over four consecutive years. The
comparisons reported here are based on data collected in the second and fourth years, in the
spring of 2005 and 2007.
This study explored confidence to do design with respect to gender and URM status. This line of
inquiry directly addresses differences between women and URMs as categories of students.
Students’ beliefs about the design education they received were also explored. This line of
inquiry is important because it addresses a potential source of confidence—the perceived
quantity and quality of the coursework itself.
The specific research questions addressed are:
•
•
•
Does confidence to do design vary with the gender, URM status, and/or academic status
of engineering students?
Do students’ beliefs about the quantity of design they are exposed to in their engineering
education coursework vary with gender, URM status, and/or class standing?
Do students’ beliefs about how well their courses are preparing them to do design vary
with gender, URM status, and/or class standing?
CAEE Research Brief
2
In the three survey questions asked of the students and intended to address the research questions
above, engineering students at four institutions were asked to (a) rate their confidence in the
ability to engage in each of eight engineering design activities, (b) indicate the frequency of
engagement with these activities in their courses, and (c) rate how well their courses are
preparing them to engage in each activity.
Demographic information was gathered from students in the first year of APS. Gender was
determined based on students’ self-reports. Reflecting the oversampling of women in the APS
study, 37% of the participants in this sample were women. Students were also identified in terms
of what the team refers to as representation status in this paper—that is, belonging to either the
majority or the URM group. For a detailed discussion of methods and analysis, please see the full
paper at the link below.
What We Found
In terms of the “confidence to do design” question, men expressed higher confidence than
women in both Years 2 and 4, although the gender gap had narrowed somewhat by Year 4. There
were no statistically significant differences between majority students and URM students in
confidence to do design. At the same time, there were significant differences in confidence
between majority men and women, but there were no significant differences in confidence
between URM men and women. Therefore, the gender gap in confidence to do design is
primarily accounted for by majority women.
For the question about students’ “perceived quantity of design education,” in both years, no
significant differences in perceived frequency of design experiences in coursework were found
for the overall sample with respect to gender or majority vs. URM status. Within the majority
group, men consistently rated their frequency of course experience with design higher compared
to women, but the differences were not statistically significant. Differences in ratings on two of
the eight design activities approached significance in Year 2, yet this finding appeared too weak
to signal a trend toward consistently higher frequency ratings by men. There were no significant
gender differences in either year within the URM group.
Lastly, findings for the question about students’ “perceived quality of design education” were
similar to the findings for confidence in design. Differences in perceived preparation between
majority men and women account for the gender gap within the overall sample. At the same
time, while no gender differences surfaced within the URM group, a graphical comparison of
average responses of men and women in Year 2 and Year 4 reveals a potential emergence of a
gender gap in perceived preparation within this group at a later stage of engineering study.
The explanatory power of these findings is limited by the significant overlap between
representation status and institutional affiliation. It is possible that other factors influence
perceptions and attitudes regarding self-confidence and preparation for design, including
characteristics of individual institutions or programs.
www.engr.washington.edu/caee
CAEE Research Brief
June 2008
3